Academic Integrity

Contact your instructor as soon as possible. You have five (5) calendar days from the report to respond, so take time to think through your explanation and gather evidence. This process is an investigation, and your response is your chance to present your side and include anything you want in the record.

The reporting instructor investigates and decides responsibility (not “guilt”) using the preponderance of the evidence standard—whether it’s more likely than not that a violation occurred. eCampus will notify you at each step.

Use your five days wisely. Explain your perspective clearly and attach supporting evidence (drafts, notes, in-class writing, etc.). Course policies define what is and isn’t allowed. If you did something that is clearly prohibited—especially regarding generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) use—intent may not override the violation.

The process assumes students make mistakes, not that they are dishonest people, and emphasizes learning from those mistakes.

The instructor who filed the report makes that determination based on all materials submitted.

First-time integrity violations are separate and are not reported to Student Conduct. If you are found responsible for any later violation, the new report and all prior ones go to the Student Conduct office, where your full record—including the nature and timing of incidents and your growth—is reviewed. Students who do not demonstrate learning from past violations may face suspension or expulsion.

Not automatically. Student Conduct reviews repeat violations holistically. Serious sanctions apply only when patterns of behavior or lack of improvement are evident.

You may appeal the finding, not the grade. To appeal, notify the Academic Integrity Officer within three (3) days of receiving the sanction letter and explain why the appeal should be granted. Appeals are only approved if you can show:

• bias
• procedural errors
• insufficient evidence

First-offense sanctions (usually short reflective assignments) cannot be appealed. For serious sanctions like suspension or expulsion, Student Conduct will provide a full explanation of the process and your rights.

Almost never. Only suspensions or expulsions appear on transcripts. First violations are not treated as conduct violations, not reported to Student Conduct, and do not create a conduct record.

Records of non-suspension sanctions (from repeat cases) are kept for seven years; records involving suspension or expulsion are kept indefinitely.

Some graduate programs ask whether you have been involved in academic misconduct. For first violations, the correct answer is no.

Only Turnitin’s AI detector should be used, and the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity suggests its report be supported by other assignment evidence. Turnitin’s detector is one of the most reliable and has been calibrated to minimize false positives.

Faculty also rely on their own expertise—they’ve read thousands of student papers, and signs of GenAI use are often clear.

GenAI tools include not only ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot but also revision tools like Grammarly or QuillBot. If your instructor prohibits GenAI, using these tools can still be a violation even if your other courses allow them.

Review your course materials to ensure expectations about collaboration, citation, and GenAI use are clear, though this is not required before reporting. Faculty vary widely in what they permit (e.g., collaboration, Grammarly, GenAI), so clarity in syllabi and assignment instructions is essential.

If you believe the student violated the Code of Academic Integrity, go to eCampus, open the Academic Integrity Violation Report, and follow the prompts. For questions, email the Integrity Officer at lacombe@adelphi.edu.

It’s not recommended. Informal “two strikes” policies deny students the due-process protections built into the formal system. Students may accept blame just to avoid grade penalties, and other students may perceive the lack of documentation as unequal treatment.

Filing a report—with an appropriate, often mild grade penalty—gives the student a written explanation, a chance to respond, an appeal process, and an opportunity to learn from the experience. It also avoids undocumented “free passes” that can unintentionally encourage misconduct.

No. But since syllabi function increasingly like formal agreements, you should clearly outline expectations—especially around collaboration, citation, and GenAI use. Student preparation and faculty expectations vary widely; clarity prevents confusion and reduces emotional responses when reports occur.

Suggested syllabus language and descriptions of each violation category are available on this site and can be posted to Moodle.

Explain what specifically raised your suspicion. Expert intuition matters, but students perceive unexplained conclusions as arbitrary. Provide details—e.g., hallucinated facts, advanced terminology, unlikely reasoning, inconsistent style, or references the student has probably not read.

Attach relevant course materials and cite where student conduct violated them. Indicate whether academic integrity was discussed in class. This shows the report is more than conflicting statements of belief.

For plagiarism or GenAI misuse, include Turnitin originality and/or AI reports. Turnitin has a low false-positive rate but can miss GenAI use, so a 0% AI score is not proof of originality. Your description and evidence should persuade a neutral reader using the preponderance of the evidence standard: is it more likely than not that the violation occurred?

You do. In Part Three of the reporting process, the reporting instructor determines responsibility. The Integrity Officer and the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity do not decide individual cases or impose academic penalties.

Yes. The grade penalty is entirely up to you. However, any assignment that violates the Code should generally be revised and resubmitted for credit, and penalties should reflect the seriousness of the conduct.

No. University sanctions are determined by the Provost’s Committee on Academic Integrity and the Office of Student Conduct using uniform criteria. Sanctions are triggered only by documented reports.

Suggestions for new or revised sanctions are welcome.

A failing course grade is recommended only in cases of serious misconduct. Please see the violation categories and suggested course penalties.

This is another reason informal “two strikes” policies are problematic—failing a student for a second incident without documentation of the first denies due process.

For first offenses, no. First reports are not handled by the Student Conduct Office and are not considered Code of Conduct violations.

For subsequent offenses, Student Conduct reviews the case along with prior reports. Transcript notations occur only if the student is suspended or expelled.

Student Conduct may impose sanctions ranging from a warning to expulsion. Most sanctions are educational in nature and designed to support learning and reflection. Suspension and expulsion are rare, though some students choose to withdraw if facing significant sanctions.

Yes—but not by itself. Turnitin’s AI detector is reliable but not infallible. It can fail to flag AI-generated text, and it does not distinguish well between text created by GenAI and text heavily revised by GenAI tools.

Use Turnitin reports thoughtfully:

• AI scores below ~20% don’t generate percentages because the false-positive risk is higher.
• A score above 20% does not guarantee GenAI use; judge the writing holistically.
• Consistent style, structure, and vocabulary across the assignment may indicate full AI authorship even if only a section is flagged.
• Conversely, poor paraphrasing or citation issues can produce higher scores without indicating GenAI use.

Turnitin’s detectors should never be used to bulk-report students based on percentage thresholds.